The added value of using the HEPA PAT for physical activity policy monitoring: a four-country comparison

Peter Gelius,Fiona Mansergh,Joanna Zukowska,Sarah Forberger,Jeroen Lakerveld,Sven Messing,Wanda Wendel-Vos,Catherine Woods

doi:10.1186/s12961-021-00681-6

Abstract

BackgroundPublic policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments.MethodsThe study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (www.jpi-pen.eu) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett’s policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries.ResultsIn all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance.ConclusionsThis study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures and timelines have to be adapted to national contexts. Overall, the instrument can make an important contribution to understanding and informing physical activity policy, especially when used as an add-on to regular monitoring tools like the EU HEPA Monitoring Framework.

Highlights

Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion
Case selection and basic rationale This study was conducted in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland as part of the Policy Evaluation Network (PEN, www.jpi-pen.eu), a project consortium composed of 28 research institutions from seven European countries and New Zealand [12]
Agenda‐setting All four countries reported the existence of a national system to monitor physical activity (PA) levels in the population: the “National Health Monitoring” in Germany [19]; the “Sports Monitor”, “Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study” and the “Healthy Ireland Survey” in Ireland [20,21,22]; the “National Health Interview Survey/Lifestyle monitor” in the Netherlands [23]; and the “National Talent Base” in Poland [24] are examples of monitoring systems operational in each country

Summary

Introduction

Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It com‐ pares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments. Insufficient levels of physical activity (PA) are considered to be a key behavioural determinant for underlying NCDs, responsible for around 5–6 million premature deaths per year worldwide [2, 3]. Our knowledge about the current status, implementation and effectiveness of policies that can promote PA in different countries is still very limited, and there is no clear guidance on which policies governments should preferably use in different settings or under various preconditions

Methods

Results

Conclusion